Tony Norman at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wonders about Gov. Ed’s “blunt talk” on race, and how Obama’s might prevent some Pennsylvanians for voting for him:

“You’ve got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate,” he said bluntly. Our eyes only met briefly, perhaps because the governor wanted to spare the only black guy in the room from feeling self-conscious for backing an obvious loser. “I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann [2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate] been the identical candidate that he was –well-spoken [note: Mr. Rendell did not call the brother “articulate”], charismatic, good-looking — but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so.”

I know I have a habit of sometimes zoning out in these meetings, but it sounded to me like Mr. Rendell had unilaterally declared Pennsylvania to be Alabama circa 1963. Was he suggesting that Pennsylvanians are uniquely racist in ways that folks in the states Mr. Obama has won so far aren’t?

Well, no. But is Rendell wrong in saying that there are whites who won’t vote for a black candidate? I think that recognizes reality - and indeed, Obama himself has said the same thing. Where it becomes a problem is when you start saying I can’t support this black candidate because or specifically because there are whites who won’t vote for the black guy. That’s where you to from merely observing an uncomfortable situation to perpetrating it.

The amazing thing about Obama’s candidacy is both that he’s been able to transcend this and has given us a glimpse of how things might work if in fact we were able to transcend this on a national basis. That’s why young people are voting for him in droves - they want to be past all that. Finally.